Question to the GES: Deity of Christ

I've been reading your blog and according to this "Crossless" gospel, even a Roman Catholic is saved if he/she believes in Jesus Christ for eternal life. We know that Catholics don't deny the deity of Christ, but they do deny the sufficiency of His sacrifice because of their teaching on the Sacrifice of the Mass and Purgatory.

This "Crossless" gospel is extremely dangerous and will give multitudes a false assurance of salvation that will send them into a Christless eternity.

 

Are we now in the business of telling God who He can save and whom He can not save? Get real.
How much theology did the thief on the cross have? How about Paul? Was he a believer when he was blinded by the Light? How about Romans 2:14-16? 14. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15. in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16. on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Is there a possibility of someone being saved that does not have all our theology? I think I'll leave that to God while doing my best to spread the Gospel. Funny statement coming from a Calvinst you say?
You have a lot of theological knowledge Lou. How much of your knowledge have you made your life?
This is what I am afraid of. I have gained much theological knowledge myself, but have I made all this knowledge my life?
I think it is a dangerous thing to tell God whom He may save and whom He may not. We certainly should dispell false teaching.... But how many common people are going to become theologians? One of the greatest faults of our churches today has become the lack of discipleship. That fault is our own however.
How about us concentrating upon spreading the Gospel and leave the saving to God? Unless of course you are too busy trying to promote a book or to destroy another man's theology. I hope you are not doing that Lou. I don't think you are.

 

I believe Lou Martuneac pastors a church in the Greater Chicago area, if I'm not mistaken. I do know he is active in speaking to Christian brothers and sisters at conferences, including one I recently attended, as well. Lou, correct me if I am wrong.

Ed

 

reformedbeliever,

Looking at your first statement sure sounds strange coming from a Calvinist who believes that God "predestines" and "elects" those who will be saved and those who are damned to eternal hellfire.

Preaching a "Crossless/Dietyless" Christ is not preaching the Gospel which saves. The Gospel which saves is Jesus Christ, crucified, buried, and risen, according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:1-4) Anyone can believe the facts about Jesus Christ--that He gives us eternal life--that He died on a cross, that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day. Unless a person personally trusts in the ENTIRE Gospel--the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ--the facts ABOUT Jesus Christ will remain just FACTS--and those FACTS will not save. One does not need a degree in theology to understand the Gospel which saves. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

A "Crossless/Deityless" Gospel has NO power--it will not save anybody. First and foremost, it leaves out the BLOOD--and "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22)

The salvation of the lost should be the desire of all believers (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47)--not for our own glory, but only for the glory of God. The fault with most churches is not lack of discipleship, but it is compromise and tolerance--compromising truth for the sake of tolerating error.

 

How can anyone claim Christ or that they believe in Him with out knowing anything about Him? I guess I thought I had heard it all until I read about this. Believing is knowing the truth about what you believe. If you only know partially you can only believe partially.
MB

 

Not to defend the aforementioned individuals since I haven't read their posts on the other boards, and I can't read your blog because your domain is blocked by American Family Filter, but this doesn't appear to be their assertion in the quotes you posted in the beginning of this thread.

Going from the quotes as you posted them, the question appears to be, what does a man have to believe to be saved? And from Paul's statement, it appears that there is a lot of room for learning and growth. Does one have to understand the Trinity? Obviously not. It's not the doctrine that saves, it's the Person. If Christ is the object of one's faith, he's saved regardless of how much he knows about that Person.

But wait! Lou comes into a nursery and says, if these sucklings can't chew these steaks that I shove in their mouths, they weren't really born!

 

Do you know the difference between predestination and double predestination? Where have I said I believe in double predestination? Can you supply the quote?

Do you really understand Calvinism? It does not seem so.

Did Paul believe the diety of Christ when the Lord struck him down?

How would you exegete Romans 2:14-16? Is there possibly room there for those who do not have our complete theology? Are you sure? Why do you assume the role of judge? I thought that was Christ's. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15. in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16. on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
I personally do not think it is an exercise of the will to be born again. I refer to John 1:13 for that view.

I of course believe and teach the necessity of the cross... the ressurection... and the diety of Christ. I'm just not dogmatic about how much a person has to understand before he can be born again. I think many are born again without much theology.... most actually. The early church did not believe in the divinity of Chirst. Refer to the early writers to see that. Were they all lost because they had faulty theology? Many suffered being maimed for Christ. They were willing to die for their Savior and the theology that they understood. How about all the professing believers who did not have scripture to study and understand? Were they all lost? Was not the simple Gospel enough? Did you know that many of the early churches did not have complete bibles? I think it is dangerous to assume a role that is not ours.
You of course are entitled to your opinion. God bless.

 

:applause: Hear! Hear!

 

I didn't dodge the question at all. I answered it straightforwardly. No one has to know or understand the Trinity to be saved.

Of course, but does one have to understand that to be saved?
Now, to your straw man, can one consciously deny the deity of Christ? A babe can choke on strong meat and spew it out because he can't handle it, and yet still be a babe in Christ. To you it may look as if he's rejecting the Gospel, but it's completely different to one who can see it for what it is.

It boils down to what saves a man. Does Christ save a man or does he save himself? I think in all your harping on this issue you are actually in more danger of denying Christ than those of whom I've read in this thread. When you say one MUST understand and affirm any doctrine to be saved, you are taking the power of salvation out of Christ's hands and putting it into a man's. No longer does Christ have the power to save. Now it's doctrine that saves, not a Person.

That's all right. Not interested.

 

Lou?? Make an obvious plug??

"Say it ain't so, Ethel!"

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I missed your response to me Ed... sorry. I don't care if Lou is the pope. I still stand on my response to him. Thanks anyway.

 

Trully blind faith. Of course I would have to disagree with it since there is no such thing as blind faith.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

MB

 

Hi Lou Martueac,
I wouldn't go so far as saying that Calvinist are "cross less advocates". I'm not a Calvinist but I've spoken with many of them here and else where. Most that I know do believe in Christ and do know Him. It isn't a matter of being absolutely correct or of knowing every single detail of Christ that is needed to be saved. The basic knowledge of the gospel message is enough. Most Christians like myself do not stop learning just because they're saved. I'll still be learning about Him when this life is over. In fact I hope I never stop learning about Him. No one knows everything about Him. Can you honestly say you know everything you should know and understand about Him? If so then this would truly be a miracle because you'd be the first.
MB

 

I do not particularly care if anyone (Lou Martuneac, reformedbeliever, EdSutton, or Joe Blow) is the pope, either, for tha matter.

My response was directed at a 'tenor' I thought I saw "sneaking in" toward the end of the of the post, that I got, and also to let one know that I believe Lou Martuneac to be a pastor of a church, nothing more or less. The fact that anyone is or is not a pastor is really irrelevant, except to say that one may be attempting to do what they believe God has called them to do, in such an instance.

I admit, this is merely my opinion.

Ed